G. Ravi

On the court record

G. Ravi appears in the corpus in civil litigation spanning appellate procedure, insolvency and allegations of disguised moneylending, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). One High Court matter, appearing for the respondent, was an appeal against a Sessions Court decision that had dismissed a counterclaim because of the non-appearance of the appellant's solicitors, where the solicitors had filed a discharge application only three days before the trial date; the questions were whether the Sessions Court had erred in law in dismissing the counterclaim on that ground, whether the refusal of an adjournment amounted to a breach of natural justice, and whether appellate intervention was warranted. A Court of Appeal matter, appearing for the respondent, concerned an application to remove a liquidator on the ground that he held no valid licence, and engaged a series of questions under the Companies Act 2016 about the liquidator's duties, the requirement that the winding-up be completed and the company dissolved within a reasonable time, whether removal must be supported by all the contributories and creditors, and whether all creditors had been served with notice of the application. A third matter, in the High Court and appearing for the plaintiff, went to trial on the contention that a sale-and-purchase agreement was a sham or facade concealing an illegal moneylending scheme, raising whether the plaintiff had established fraud or misrepresentation, whether a conveyancing law firm joined as a defendant was liable for professional negligence or for participation in an unlawful scheme, and whether another defendant was entitled to vacant possession. The sham-transaction trial in particular brought a professional dimension into view, since it asked not only whether the sale-and-purchase agreement concealed an unlawful loan but whether the conveyancing firm that handled the transaction bore any liability for negligence or for participating in the scheme. Across the appearances the practice moves between the fairness of first-instance procedure, the supervision of insolvency office-holders and the unpicking of transactions said to disguise unlawful lending.